"Beat Him, Take Everything Away"

Languages

Available In

A woman fights with chengguan police as they dismantle part of her small restaurant and confiscate equipment that she stored on the sidewalk outside of her shop in the Fuzi Miao tourist market in central Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. The chengguan in Nanjing began a crackdown on sidewalk vendors and shop-owners in advance of the May 1, 2008, May Day holiday.

Summary

One October morning in 2010,
four Beijing “Urban Management” officers, or chengguan (城管), stopped their car next to the cart of Wang Ren (not
her real name), a 32-year-old migrant from Henan province, who was selling
grapes. Wang told Human Rights Watch that three of the chengguan
officers got onto Wang’s cart and without explanation began confiscating
her grapes. When Wang protested, they began kicking her. They then threw her
from her cart into the road. While they kicked her, they cursed her, saying
“Fxxx your mother. You dare ask us for a reason?” After Wang was
tossed from her cart, the fourth chengguan officer, who had silently
stood by during the beating, interceded and instructed her three colleagues to
stop beating Wang. The chengguan officers confiscated Wang’s
grapes and departed. Wang was left with deep bruising from the attack.[1]

Since its founding in 1997,
China’s Chengguan Urban Management Law Enforcement (城管执法), a para-police agency tasked with enforcing
non-criminal urban administrative regulations, has earned a reputation for
excessive force and impunity. The chengguan have become synonymous among
some Chinese citizens with arbitrary and thuggish behavior including assaults
on suspected administrative law violators (some of which lead to serious injury
or death), illegal detention, and abuses accompanying forceful confiscation of
property.

This report provides an
overview of the creation and development of chengguan units over the
past 15 years, details recent cases of abuse, and sets forth recommendations
for ending the abuses.

In important respects, the
concerns highlighted here are illustrative of problems plaguing law enforcement
in China more generally: abusive behavior that often goes unpunished, failure
to uphold the principle “innocent until proven guilty,” unclear
legal regulation, and an obdurate bureaucracy intent on protecting itself.
While China allows media coverage of chengguan abuses, regular police on
some occasions intervene to protect victims, and there have been some efforts
at reform, the problems persist and merit the attention of both Chinese leaders
and concerned international actors.

The findings here are based
on Human Rights Watch interviews with victims of chengguan abuse and
other research in six Chinese cities between mid-2009 and 2011 as well as
analysis of Chinese-language sources, including laws, regulations, and academic
articles, and review of other published reports of chengguan abuses. An
appendix provides details of more than 150 cases of chengguan abuses
reported in Chinese national and local media between July 2010 and March 2012.

Victims of chengguan
abuse interviewed by Human Rights Watch told us they were slapped, shoved,
pushed to the ground, forcibly held down on the ground, dragged, punched,
kicked, and thrown from their vehicles to the street. Many of those with whom
Human Rights Watch spoke were street vendors, whose status as internal migrants
puts them at particular risk of abuse.

Although chengguan
personnel have no legal authority to detain suspects, several interviewees said
they were detained by them. Some said they suffered physical abuses while
detained or while resisting being detained. Many street vendors told us their
vehicles and merchandise were confiscated. In some instances, chengguan
officers conditioned the return of confiscated belongings on payment of
seemingly arbitrary fines, spurring popular speculation of corruption by chengguan
authorities.

Chengguan have also been implicated in abusive forced evictions
of residents from their homes at a time when alleged collusion between corrupt
officials and property developers has created what a Chinese human rights
organization has described as a “pandemic of illegal demolition” in
China. Chinese journalists who attempt to report on chengguan abuses
have also been targeted with illegal detention and physical violence by chengguan.

The report builds on Human
Rights Watch work published over the past five years documenting violations by
Chinese police and other public security forces, including enforced
disappearances, abuses in detention, torture to gain information and
confessions, and lack of due process in police investigations and judicial
proceedings. And while the Chinese government has launched legal reform
initiatives aimed at reducing police abuses, the chengguan, as a
non-criminal law enforcement organ, has not yet been the target of such
initiatives. Despite criticism of chengguan abuses by the Chinese
public, state media, lawyers, and legal scholars, the Chinese government has
failed to develop effective mechanisms to prevent abuses and punish perpetrators.

China’s first chengguan
unit began operating on an experimental basis in Beijing in 1997 following
passage of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Administrative
Penalty (hereafter, “Administrative Penalties Law”). That law gave
municipalities authority to create a new mechanism for enforcing non-criminal
municipal regulations and imposing fines on violators. The impetus for the chengguan’s
founding included both official frustration with the effectiveness of existing
administrative enforcement mechanisms and government concern about the
emergence of new perceived threats to social stability in the late 1990s.

The Administrative Penalties
Law permits provincial, autonomous region, and municipal governments to
transfer law-enforcement duties for relatively minor infractions in areas such
as traffic control, environmental regulation, and city beautification from
existing municipal departments to new units tasked specifically with such
duties. In response, a total of 308 Chinese municipalities formed chengguan
units by the end of 2005. Beijing’s ranks of chengguan officers grew
from just over 100 in 1997 to 6,200 by July 2010. Chengguan
responsibilities also grew exponentially in that period. Beijing’s chengguan
currently have legal enforcement power over more than 300 different
infractions, extending to “almost every aspect of city residents’
lives.”[2]

In principle, chengguan
can be criminally prosecuted for abuses of power under existing Chinese law,
but such charges are rarely brought. There is no overarching national
regulatory framework laying out the permissible scope of chengguan
duties, no uniform training requirements or code of conduct, and no systematic monitoring
and investigation of alleged chengguan abuses. Ad hoc, localized
regulation and control of chengguan has in at least one case resulted in
a city government explicitly training its chengguan to avoid visible
signs of abuse when dealing with suspects, implicitly authorizing their
mistreatment: a Beijing chengguan training manual circulated online in
April 2009 stipulates that in the course of enforcement operations, chengguan
should, “In dealing with the subject, take care to leave no blood on the
face, no wounds on the body, and [ensure that] no people [are] in the
vicinity.”[3]

Concerns about chengguan
excesses have prompted calls for reform from Chinese legal experts and scholars,
with proposed remedies ranging from new, stringent laws on chengguan
operations and conduct, to outright abolition of the units and transfer of
their duties to China’s Public Security Bureau (police). Some
municipalities have responded to criticism of chengguan abuses by
imposing limitations on chengguan powers. Those limitations have in some
cities included explicit prohibitions on chengguan use of
“excessive force” in the discharge of their duties. However, other
cities have focused on more cosmetic approaches to public criticism of chengguan
abuses; one notable example is Chengdu city officials’ trumpeting as
evidence of reform their creation of special female chengguan units who
carry out their duties on roller-skates.

Senior Chinese government
officials regularly speak of their commitment to the rule of law and their
respect for people’s human rights. A 2004 constitutional amendment reads,
“The state respects and preserves human rights.”[4] Yet China’s state media continue to report on troubling
instances of violent behavior by chengguan officers and physical
confrontations between chengguan and street vendors on a near-weekly
basis. A Google search for Chinese-language references to chengguan
produces literally millions of entries for “chengguan beat
people” (城管打人).
Public resentment of chengguan abuses and the apparent impunity these
forces enjoy have fueled a number of violent protests. Allowing these forces to
continue to operate with impunity is likely to fuel greater public resentment
leading to more violent confrontations.

Recommendations

To the Government of the People’s Republic of China

China’s leadership should publicly and
unambiguously condemn chengguan assaults on and illegal detention of
suspected administrative law violators, emphasizing that such malfeasance is
illegal and announcing new measures to ensure rigorous investigation and, where
appropriate, prosecution of chengguan officers believed responsible for
such acts.

The leadership should also establish an independent
commission which includes representatives of the Public Security Bureau, the
Chinese Communist Party’s Political Legal Committee, and
academics and lawyers familiar with problems in the regulation and operations
of chengguan to assess chengguan performance and suggest
further reforms. The merits and demerits of replacing the chengguan
system with other mechanisms of urban administrative law enforcement should be
among the topics addressed.

The Ministry of Public Security (MPS) should
consider creating an independent investigatory taskforce with the resources
necessary to investigate and bring to account Public Security Bureau personnel
complicit in chengguan abuses in Beijing and other cities.

The State Council’s Information Office
should ensure that chengguan abuses are among the issues addressed in
the government’s pending National Human Rights Action Plan (2012-2015).[5]

To the Public Security
Bureau

The PSB should create a special unit
dedicated to investigating criminal abuses perpetrated by chengguan
officers. This special police unit should be given legal authority to conduct
spot-checks on chengguan operations and have capacity to respond to
reports of chengguan abuses whenever and wherever they occur. The
authority of the police to intervene to halt chengguan abuses, however,
should be general and not limited to a special unit.

The PSB should create 24-hour telephone and
internet hotlines for victims of chengguan abuses to report misconduct
to the new police unit.

The PSB should ensure that all victims of chengguan
abuses receive appropriate medical and legal assistance and compensation for
their losses.

The PSB should also initiate a mass public
education campaign on the legal rights of street vendors, including their right
not to be physically abused or illegally detained by chengguan officers,
even when they lack vending permits. Campaign targets should include police, chengguan,
and all public security forces, reminding them of their obligations to protect
the rights of all persons, including street vendors, and the potentially severe
legal penalties that abuse of those rights entails.

To Provincial, Autonomous Region, and Municipal
Governments in China with Chengguan Enforcement Organs

Publicly and unambiguously condemn chengguan
assaults on and illegal detention of suspected administrative law violators,
emphasizing that such malfeasance is illegal and announcing new measures to ensure rigorous investigation and,
where appropriate, prosecution of chengguan officers believed
responsible for such acts.

Educate chengguan
officers in the rights of all people, including street vendors, and the
potentially severe legal penalties that abuse of those rights entails. Ensure
that all chengguan training includes components on human rights and the
illegality of torture, assault, illegal detention, and extortion.

Review
personnel records of existing chengguan officers and ensure that any who
have been implicated in illegal detention, assault, or other abuses are
suspended from active duty while allegations against them are fully
investigated. In cases where there is evidence of potentially criminal conduct,
records should be shared with police to facilitate investigation and possible
criminal prosecution.

To Governments and International Bodies Funding Chinese Legal
Reform or Concerned with Human Rights in China, including the United States,
the European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank, and the Asian
Development Bank

Express strong concerns to Chinese officials
about chengguan abuses, emphasizing that those abuses violate both
Chinese and international law, that perpetrators should be punished, and that
victims should be provided with reasonable compensation.

Methodology

Human Rights Watch conducted
research on human rights abuses by chengguan authorities in the
municipalities of Beijing, Shenyang, Huangshan, Kunming, Nanjing, and Qingdao
from mid-2009 through 2011.Those municipalities were selected in part because
state media reports of chengguan-related violence were most common in
those cities.

The Chinese government does
not allow independent, impartial organizations to freely conduct research or
monitor human rights, particularly research related to the operations of the
nation’s security forces. As a result, conducting interviews and
gathering credible information presents formidable challenges. Our research
thus required a high level of sensitivity to the security of both researchers
and interviewees. We conducted interviews only in circumstances in which they
could be carried out without surveillance and possible harassment of government
officials or security forces.

In all, we interviewed 25 men
and women of varying socio-economic backgrounds who had been victims of chengguan
abuses. The majority were street vendors and many of them reported that they
had witnessed chengguan abuse of other street vendors. We also
interviewed an individual whose family members were beaten by chengguan
officers in the course of the forced eviction and demolition of their home and
a Chinese journalist who told Human Rights Watch how he was beaten by a
baton-wielding chengguan officer while covering a public protest.

Interviews were conducted in
Chinese and no incentives were offered or provided to persons interviewed. All
participants provided oral informed consent to participate and were assured
anonymity. Because of a very real possibility of reprisals, we have withheld
the names of all of the chengguan victims we spoke with and used
pseudonyms in describing their cases.

The report also draws on
Chinese academic research, including the 2008 The Newest Essential Manual
for Chengguan Grassroots Work by China Land Press and a study by the
organization Chinese Human Rights Defenders. The report also uses accounts
published in the Chinese state media, including the China Youth Daily, Beijing
News, and the People’s Daily, and in international media,
including the Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, and
Singapore’s Straits Times. Many of these reports describe chengguan
violence and impunity and suggest that chengguan abuses take place
across the country.

Our findings are consistent
with research published in 2011 by Chinese Human Rights Defenders, a Chinese
and international nongovernmental group that focuses on exposing human rights
abuses and promoting human rights capacity building and advocacy.[6]

In April 2012 Human Rights
Watch sent letters to the Public Security Bureau and the Chinese Communist
Party’s Political and Legislative Committee detailing the
findings and recommendations of this report and asking what actions they were
taking or would consider taking to address the concerns raised here. Copies of
those letters can be found in an appendix to this report. At the time this
report went to press, Human Rights Watch had not received any replies to our
letters.

I. Background

Chengguan Origin
and Legal Basis

The legal basis for the
creation of the chengguan is the Law of the People’s Republic of
China on Administrative Penalty (hereafter, Administrative Penalties Law),
passed in March 1996.[7] That law did not specifically call for the creation
of the chengguan, nor did it use that term. Instead, the law empowered
provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities to “entrust an
organization … with imposing administrative penalties” regarding
matters falling outside the realm of criminal law and the authority of the
Public Security Bureau (China’s police).[8] Over the next six years, China’s State Council,
or cabinet, issued a total of four directives which echoed and amplified the
objectives of the Administrative Penalties Law.[9]

The goals of the Chinese
government appear to have been streamlining enforcement of local administrative
regulations which were traditionally the responsibility of multiple local
government departments,[10] minimizing opportunities for corruption and abuse of
power, and better controlling public unrest.

According to Professor Jin
Guokun of the Beijing Municipal School of Administration, the
government’s intention was to require local municipalities to establish
“a comprehensive department for administrative enforcements instead of
various departments which were previously responsible” on the rationale
that “one department is always better than 10 departments handling the
same issue.”[11] That multi-department approach to administrative law
enforcement had also created abuses of power that the central government
described in its 1996 Administrative Punishments Circular as part of the
motivation to create a new administrative enforcement entity free of such
defects.

Some persons in the administrative law-enforcing contingent
are low quality at present. Some of them abuse power for personal gain, refusing
to provide service without personal gain or misusing power just for personal
gain. Some of them even pervert justice for bribes and break the criminal law.
Some localities and departments employ contract or temporary workers to carry
out the work of law enforcement without necessary funds and other necessary
conditions, resulting in a decline in the general quality of the law-enforcement
personnel and damage to the image of the government. All localities and
departments must pay close attention to that problem, regard the building of an
efficient and honest and clean law-enforcing contingent as the key point in
implementing the Law on Administrative Penalty.[12]

The chengguan’s
emergence also reflected official concern about potentially destabilizing socioeconomic
changes underway in Chinese cities. Policymakers perceived the rising numbers
of laid-off or xia-gang (下岗)[13] state-owned enterprise employees and the growing
population of migrant workers from China’s countryside coming to the
cities in search of work in the late 1990s as potential threats to law and
order.[14] Those changes in China’s urban population mix
overwhelmed the Chinese government’s existing urban social control
mechanism, the danwei (单位) or
work unit, and prompted policymakers to create a replacement, said Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences scholar Zhou Hanhua.

Originally [urban social control] issues were handled by
the danwei (单位),
the work unit, to which Chinese employees were once closely bound. The danwei
… prevented people from engaging in [commercial] enterprises on the side.
The decline of China’s state-owned enterprises in the 1990s precipitated
the breakdown of the danwei system. At the same time, the country grew
increasingly urbanized and millions of migrant workers poured into the cities.
The traditional [urban social control] system could no longer manage [so] the chengguan
were established to handle the problems of the urban environment.[15]

The Administrative Penalties
Law outlines the powers of unspecified “administrative organs”[16] to impose administrative penalties which range from
“disciplinary warnings,” “fines,” and “suspension
of businesses” to “confiscation of illegal gains or … unlawful
property.”[17] The law also seems designed to create a non-punitive
law enforcement ethos, with explicit calls for penalties to be “combined
with education”[18] and to reflect “the principles of fairness and
openness,”[19] and it acknowledges the right of alleged violators to
legally challenge administrative penalties and seek compensation.[20] The Administrative Penalties Law also requires that
administrative regulation enforcers obey a code of conduct which, among other
things, requires that they identify themselves to alleged administrative rule
violators[21] and inform them of the relevant violation[22] and their right to a legal defense.[23] According to the Newest Essential Manual for
Chengguan Grassroots Work, an academic publication, those principles and
legal guarantees are routinely flouted.

In reality, chengguan law enforcement personnel do
not produce their credentials, they confiscate goods illegally, they
don’t follow legal process in carrying out their duties to inform. They
don’t follow rules for a [legal] hearing either, [so] unfair law
enforcement and illegal processes according to the Law of the Peoples Republic
of China on Administrative Penalty occur repeatedly and are nothing new.[24]

The Administrative Penalties
Law does not specify the scope of chengguan enforcement powers. It was
not until August 2002 that the central government published a directive
outlining eight specific areas of administrative law— ranging from
environmental sanitation and traffic regulations to urban beautification rules[25]—that provinces, autonomous regions, and
municipalities may delegate to chengguan. But even that directive does
not specify permissible and prohibited means of enforcement, or set forth rules
to guide the deportment and accountability of relevant enforcement personnel.

The Administrative Penalties
Law lacunae have raised persistent concerns among lawyers and legal scholars
about the chengguan’s fundamental legality.[26] “The legitimacy issue is at the core of all
complaints targeted at the chengguan [because] there is no official
document stipulating its status as a law enforcer.”[27] Beijing lawyer Hao Jinsun has argued that there is
“no law or executive order formally sanctioning the existence of the [chengguan].
Its powers have simply been conferred by some municipal government departments
and this is illegal.”[28] A November 2011 report by the nongovernmental organization
Chinese Human Rights Defenders argued that the chengguan’s ambiguous
legal basis facilitates “violence, brutality, law-breaking, corruption
and human rights abuses” by chengguan personnel.[29]

A 2007 review of academic
research on chengguan duties and powers noted that in some jurisdictions
chengguan have “14 functions and more than 300 kinds of power,
none of which, however, is endowed by law … [instead, chengguan
functions and powers are adapted] from those of industry and commerce
administrations and public security bureaus.”[30] The
human rights lawyer and legal scholar Teng Biao has asserted that the ambiguities
of the Administrative Penalties Law fatally undermine its legal legitimacy:

Since 1997 when the chengguan came into being …
until now there is no national “Chengguan Management Law” or
administrative regulations [so] chengguan “law enforcement”
has no legal basis. A lack of uniformity and standardization of [chengguan]
law enforcement, lack of lead [regulatory]
agency and the absence of legal supervision has jeopardized the authority of
public security.[31]

To remedy that ambiguity and
to give the chengguan a firmer legal foundation with clear duties and
transparent lines of control and command, the Standing Committee of
China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress, approved the
Law of the People’s Republic of China on Administrative Enforcement (hereafter,
Administrative Enforcement Law) on June 30, 2011,[32] after six years of deliberation.[33] Peking University Professor Jiang Mingan described
the law as a means to rectify inadequacies in the Administrative Penalty Law
which “is too ambiguous and not good enough in terms of checking and
balancing the power of [chengguan].”[34]

As with every other law and
government directive governing the operations of the chengguan, the Administrative
Enforcement Law, which came into effect on January 1, 2012, does not mention
the chengguan by name but instead refers to “administrative
organs.”[35] Numerous specific articles of the law, however,
define and clarify duties of “administrative enforcement”[36] and “administrative compulsion”[37] in an apparent effort to prevent chengguan
abuses.[38] They include the prioritization of
“non-compulsory” enforcement measures[39] and limitations on the power of administrative organs
to seize and confiscate property.[40] The law also stipulates a procedure for when and how
administrative organs may use “compulsion,” a provision which
appears designed to prevent chengguan abuses against members of the
public.[41] The law also prohibits administrative organs such as
the chengguan from conducting administrative enforcement actions they
are not empowered by law to conduct[42] and reinforces the existing ban on administrative
detention of suspects by chengguan.[43]

A July 5, 2011 assessment of
the Administrative Enforcement Law by the Beijing-based legal firm Lehman, Lee
and Xu LLP described the law as an advance in Chinese government efforts to
“curb the abuse of administrative powers” while providing
“protection of the rights of citizens and entities.”[44] But commentary on the law by Chinese sources has been
mixed. A February 9, 2012, statement by the Urban Management Administrative Law
Enforcement Bureau in Huai’an, Jiangsu province, praises the law for
having a “pronounced impact on urban management and law
enforcement” through the implementation of “more stringent
administrative enforcement provisions.”[45]

A February 9, 2012 editorial
in the Economic Information Daily, however, casts doubt on its impact.
The editorial describes an incident in Harbin in which chengguan
confiscated a swing which had hung at the door of a senior citizen’s
residence.[46] The editorial argues the confiscation violates the
Administrative Enforcement Law criteria for such seizure because the chengguan
did not produce law enforcement identity documents, did not give legal reasons
for the confiscation, and did not notify the affected citizens of their legal
rights.[47]

Despite the confusion
surrounding the chengguan’s responsibilities and chain of command,
their numbers have grown considerably. The first chengguan detachment
began operations on a trial basis in Beijing’s Xuanwu district in May
1997. By September 2000, chengguan enforcement operations had expanded
under the direction and regulation of individual municipalities to a total of
65 cities. By the end of 2005, 308 Chinese cities had created chengguan
detachments out of a total of 656 cities nationwide. Beijing’s ranks of chengguan
officers grew from just over 100 in 1997 to 6,200 in July 2010.

Duties and Training

Individual municipalities
define the duties and powers of their chengguan units. According to a
Chinese academic study of chengguan operations, “Provincial,
autonomous region and municipal governments decide the [scope of] chengguan
law enforcement rights … [this has led directly] to local governments
allowing chengguan duties to excessively affect [citizens] rights and
has led to the limitless expansion of chengguan scope of duties.”[48]

Chengguan duties can extend to enforcement of municipal
government property eviction and demolition orders. These actions frequently
involve angry or violent protests between enforcement personnel and aggrieved
property owners, situations more appropriate for better trained and qualified
police officers.[49]

Beijing regulations, which
other municipalities have adopted as a model, give chengguan enforcement
powers in 14 areas and stipulate 300 sub-categories of violations for which chengguan
have the power to impose punishment, including a catch-all “other
administrative punishments” category.[50] In the area of hygiene, for example, the regulations
give chengguan authority to ensure the quality of restaurants’
cooking oil,[51] while in the public utilities area they provide that
the chengguan are to ensure the safety of the city’s gas
pipelines.[52] During the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the municipal
government mobilized more than 5,000 chengguan officers to assist with
ensuring good air quality during the games.[53] In Yantai city in Shandong province, the municipality
has empowered local chengguan with vague “emergency” law
enforcement powers.[54] Those responsibilities have allowed for extremely
wide interpretation and application which have been criticized for
“covering almost every aspect of city residents’ lives … [and]
the vital interests of the people.”[55]

Both the Administrative
Penalties Law and the Circular of the State Council Regarding the
Implementation of Administrative Punishments stipulate educational and training
qualifications for chengguan officers.[56] However, numerous legal scholars, lawyers, and civil
society activists are skeptical about the implementation of those standards.
Certain municipalities employ chengguan officers who have not even
graduated from high school.[57]

Yao Lifa, a democracy
activist and former municipal People’s Congress representative in Qianjiang
city in Hubei province, blames the education and skill deficit of many chengguan
on the common municipal practice of hiring demobilized soldiers untrained in
administrative law enforcement as chengguan.[58] A Nanjing chengguan officer in May 2010 cited
“lack of proper training” for frequent incidents of violence
involving chengguan officers.[59] “We don’t have enough training to
effectively enforce law with manners. We are too often told about the dos and
don’ts, but seldom how to work properly.”[60]

The training that chengguan
do receive has fueled concerns about chengguan commitment to the rights
and safety of Chinese citizens. In April 2009, contents of the Beijing
Municipal Bureau of City Administration’s Law Enforcement Training
Manual were leaked onto the internet. Sections of the book, described in
the preface as China’s “first professional guide to practical city
administration enforcement” reportedly suggested the application of
violence against citizens in the course of enforcement actions.[61] Among them were instructions for surreptitious
violence against perceived rule-breakers: “In dealing with the subject,
take care to leave no blood on the face, no wounds on the body, and [ensure
that] no people [are] in the vicinity.”[62]

Chengguan and
Street Vendors

Media reports and interviews
by Human Rights Watch suggest that street vendors constitute a large proportion
of the victims of chengguan violence. Xie Zhikui, deputy director of the
Institute for Social Development at the Shenzhen Academy of Social Sciences, attributes the lack of formal
employment opportunities for rural migrants in China’s cities to their
participation in the “informal economy” of street vending.[63]Street
vending is illegal in most of China’s cities outside of designated
outdoor market areas where vendors require government-issued permits.[64] Those restrictions are widely ignored, bringing
vendors into conflict with chengguan officers tasked to keep streets,
sidewalks, footbridges, and pedestrian underpasses free of illegal vendors.

Street vendors rarely bother
to apply for the necessary registration for legal outdoor vending and a senior chengguan
official noted in 2008 that municipal governments lack personnel to ensure the
efficient issuance of such permits.[65] However, one chengguan official defended his
agency’s focus on the activities of street vendors as a response to
public complaints about their effect on the areas where they operate. “Chengguan
officers … respond daily to residents’ complaints against noise,
fumes and pollution caused by street vendors, [even in cases where] they have
no legal basis to [sanction the street vendors],” according to Luo
Yameng, secretary-general of the National Joint Meeting of the Directors of all
Chengguan Bureaus in the Country.[66]

The result is a perception
that, “the main task of chengguan officers now is to drive away
vendors from pavements and underpasses … [and] many city authorities
resort to violent means to remove them.”[67] A November 2011 report by the nongovernmental
organization Chinese Human Rights Defenders described chengguan
“basic law enforcement methods” in controlling street vendors as
including: “Confiscation of goods, kicking vendors’ stands,
throwing [vendors’] goods to the ground, gang [style] beatings,
triad-style [gangster-like] protection fee collection.”[68] Police statistics issued in 2009 indicate that there
are 600 violent incidents annually between illegal vendors and chengguan
in the city of Guangzhou alone.[69] Those statistics do not specify who provoked the violent
incidents or whether injuries resulted.

A 41-year-old female street
vendor, Ruan Ying, who was the victim of a chengguan beating in late
July 2010 in Beijing, summarized the fear and confusion felt by vendors toward chengguan:

No reason was given [for the beating]. They never told me
what crime I had committed. In fact, up to this day, I still do not know if
doing this business is legal or not. We are playing a cat-and-mouse game: the chengguan
officers arrive, we run. We don’t even understand why they want to arrest
us.[70]

Professor Cai Dingjian of
China University of Political Science and Law believes the chengguan’s
enforcement focus on street vendors is misdirected and wasteful. Cai suggests
that the government replace the chengguan with “a new urban
service body that will be responsible for registering street peddlers, so that
these self-employed people will become part of the city’s business
community.”[71] Nanjing’s municipal government announced an
initiative in July 2009 which would grant vending permits for designated areas
to 10,000 low-income earners.[72] However, that initiative was limited to citizens with
Nanjing household registration, or hukou permits,[73] thus disqualifying migrants who constitute the
majority of China’s street vendors.[74] China’s central government was reportedly
mulling a directive in 2009 which would legalize street vending “as a
means creating jobs and curbing a rash of violent conflicts between the sellers
and the law-enforcement officials who police them.”[75] However, no such directive has yet been issued.

Public Criticism

There are numerous expressions of public concern in China about chengguan
abuses. The Wall Street Journal reported that in mid-2010 the most common
Chinese-language phrase containing the term “chengguan” searched
on Google was “chengguan beat people” (城管打人).[76] In numerous recent Chinese state media editorials,
the chengguan have been vilified with epithets ranging from “the
epitome of the evils of public power”[77] or derided as law-breaking “X-Men … with
only basic means of attack such an iron stick, a piece of brick, or … only
their hands.”[78] In October 2010, a very popular video game across
China was one that involved the player taking the role of a street vendor
tasked with having to “defeat 10 waves of attacks by the semi-official
enforcers, known as chengguan”.[79] A Shenzhen chengguan official complained to
the People’s Daily in October 2011 that he and his colleagues
often encounter “verbal abuse, pushing and are sometimes even spat upon”
in the course of their duties by members of the public.[80]

In May 2011, the Chinese
government released a “Chengguan Image Analysis Report,”
which attributed the organization’s poor public image to harsh online
commentary which had prompted the public to “demonize” chengguan.[81] The report characterized public antipathy toward chengguan
as the result of unfair “public prejudice” and “incompetent
public relations.”[82] A Chinese state media English-language newspaper, the
Global Times, ridiculed that assertion: “Chengguan’s
notorious reputation is not the result of bad PR management, but a reflection
of their real image. In the past few years, the public has witnessed too many
violent acts by chengguan.”[83]

One indicator of public
antipathy toward the chengguan is the rising number of protests and
riots that have occurred over the past two years in response to alleged chengguan
abuses. At least half a dozen such outbreaks of public violence have been
reported since 2009, with several involving thousands of protesters who have
attacked chengguan and police and damaged chengguan vehicles.
Those outbreaks of violence prompted Asia Monitor, an Asia-based risk
consultancy firm, to draw parallels in July 2011 between chengguan-related
unrest in China and the protests which presaged the popular uprisings in
Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya in early 2011.[84]

In the most recent reported public
protest over alleged chengguan malfeasance, a large crowd in Qianxi,
Guizhou province, overturned, burned, and smashed 10 chengguan vehicles before
dispersing on August 11, 2011, in protest of chengguan operations
against alleged illegal parking.[85] A similar protested erupted in Anshun in Guizhou
province on July 26, 2011, in response to reports that local chengguan
had beaten a disabled fruit vendor to death.[86] The crowd clashed briefly with city authorities
before eventually dispersing.[87] Those two incidents prompted criticism of chengguan
law enforcement methods at a meeting of Guizhou’s standing committee of
the provincial Chinese Communist Party on August 14, 2011.[88] Party cadre at the meeting attributed those incidents
to inadequacies in Guizhou chengguan enforcement methods.[89]

[Guizhou chengguan
are]low in law enforcement qualities; employ outdated law enforcement style;
lack surveillance and supervision regarding the way they enforce the law; fail
to enforce the law with civility, impartiality, sensitivity, and a
service-oriented and humanized attitude; and fail to adopt a low-key approach,
respect the masses, or exercise patience and persuasion while enforcing the law.[90]

Reform Efforts

On January 1, 2012, the Chinese government implemented the Administrative
Enforcement Law,[91] which the government describes as a means to improve
supervision of “administrative organs.”[92] The law makes no specific mention of the chengguan
but certain sections stipulate that “administrative organs” have
the right and duty to suspend enforcement of administrative regulations if
enforcement risks “irreparable damage”[93] and specifies restitution or compensation for people affected
by errors in administrative regulation enforcement.[94] That regulation appears designed to curb chengguan
abuses and to provide legal redress for people who are victims of such abuse.
It is not yet clear whether the Administrative Enforcement Law is having a
substantive impact on curbing chengguan abuses.

Some municipal governments
have responded to public concerns about abuses by chengguan with various
measures aimed at mitigating or preventing abuses and boosting public
confidence in chengguan operations. In May 2007, the Beijing municipal
government issued new guidelines that prohibited “rude or barbaric
methods of law enforcement,”[95] while in September 2009 the Guangzhou municipal
government implemented rules emphasizing non-violent “persuasion”
in chengguan performance of their duties.[96] The Nanjing municipal government in May 2010
prohibited chengguan personnel from drinking alcohol on duty and using
“excessive force” in the course of their duties.[97]

In 2010, a summer training
course at Tsinghua University in Beijing in Confucianism, Taoism, and Legalism
for 80 senior chengguan officials aimed to improve the
organization’s “comprehensive set of qualities.”[98] The Chengdu municipal government’s approach to
addressing chengguan shortcomings included hiring special units of
female chengguan officers to patrol the city on roller-skates as a
reflection of “a more moderate approach to law enforcement.”[99] There is no publicly available research indicating
whether these efforts have been effective in reducing violence and other abuses
by chengguan authorities in these cities.

II. Chengguan
Abuses

[The chengguan
officers] verbally abused me and beat me. They said that sale of vegetables on
the street is not allowed and this is a regulation. I was beaten up. They hit me
in the head and face and my nose was bleeding. They punched me in the face
until my face was swollen.[100]

Excessive Force and Torture

Individuals targeted by chengguan
efforts are often subjected to physical violence that appears to be gratuitous
or excessive in light of the circumstances. Seventeen of the 25 persons we
interviewed who experienced violence at the hands of the chengguan
reported having been beaten or otherwise physically abused. The violence, often
inflicted in view of multiple eyewitnesses, included being slapped, shoved,
pushed to the ground, forcibly held down on the ground, dragged, punched,
kicked, and thrown from vehicles to the street. Those beatings resulted in
injuries ranging from bruises, cuts, and bloody noses to broken bones.

Many of the persons interviewed
by Human Rights Watch said that chengguan officials were extremely
aggressive and uncommunicative while conducting enforcement operations. This
account by Ma Lijun of an encounter between fruit vendors and chengguan
in the city of Qingdao in Shandong province on September 21, 2009, is
illustrative:

We sell our goods beside a
supermarket. On the day of the incident, more than 10 people came out of the
supermarket to tell us that we weren’t allowed to sell our goods there.
We disagreed, and the supermarket staff overturned the fruit stall. The
supermarket [staff] rang up the chengguan office. Six chengguan
officers arrived, with a chengguan supervisor hurling verbal abuse while
getting out of the car. They were swearing the minute they got out of their
vehicles [and] they kicked me. Our staff member holding a camera [filming the
incident] is a young girl, but [the chengguan officers] surrounded her,
held her down, and kicked her.[101]

Street vendors are not the
only victims of excessive force by chengguan. Journalists who attempt to
report on such incidents have been beaten by chengguan officers
objecting to media coverage of their activities. A group of chengguan
forcibly dragged away and beat a reporter for Ningxia’s New News
on the morning of July 7, 2007, while the journalist was trying to interview a
local chengguan official.[102] The official was subsequently suspended for an
unspecified period of time.[103] On March 17, 2009, a group of seven to eight chengguan
officers attacked a journalist while he was filming the scene of a traffic
accident in Changsha, Hunan province, with his mobile phone camera. The journalist’s
wrist was injured when the chengguan officers forcibly confiscated his
phone and his wrist later required medical treatment.[104]

The account of journalist
Zhang Wei, beaten by chengguan officers on March 26, 2010, in Kunming,
Yunnan province, further highlights the risks faced by reporters who cover chengguan-related
incidents:

A hawker had been beaten up. A conflict had erupted between
the chengguan officers and the hawkers. After the officers hit the man,
a crowd surrounded [them], refusing to let them leave. I was about to interview
a little girl who was sitting on the ground crying, when [the chengguan]
came up to me claiming that I had crossed the police cordon. About six [chengguan]
used their plastic batons to hit me, and they kicked me, too. They ignored me
completely when I said I was a reporter. Even when my colleague went up to them
to prove [my identify using] his identification, they still refused to listen.
Although there were police officers on the scene, they did not stop the chengguan
officers.[105]

Chengguan officers have also used excessive force in forcible
eviction operations and demolitions. Reports of such violence are common in
state media coverage of such operations. Kunming policeman Zhang Jingren, for example, was
beaten by chengguan when he resisted a December 22, 2010 operation to
demolish an illegally enclosed balcony in his home. According to a local news
report, “[m]ore than 20 [chengguan] officers knocked Zhang to the
ground and beat him with batons,”[106] breaking his right leg so badly that
required surgery. Authorities announced an investigation into the attack but
the results have not yet been made public.[107]

Zhang’s experience echoes that of Lin Ping, a 32-year-old woman in
Huangshan, Anhui province, who told Human Rights Watch that her grandmother was
injured in the course of a chengguan operation to evict her family from their
home in the early morning hours of April 20, 2008.

My grandmother and parents came out when they were about to
start demolishing. There were 300-400 chengguan officers. The officers
hit and verbally abused my grandmother. My family tried to obstruct them when
they came. We asked what authority they had for demolishing our house. But
there were so many of them, how was it possible for us to stop them? The police
were unable to apprehend [the chengguan officers who injured my
grandmother], so the manager of the demolition company undertook compensation. Chengguan
officers should be the poster children for civil and orderly governance. Why
did they do this?[108]

Of the people we interviewed
who complained about chengguan actions, most said that the chengguan,
who commonly work in teams of up to six individuals,[109] provided little or no legal justification or
information about what regulations they were enforcing. That failure to inform
is a violation of their obligations under both the Administrative Penalties Law
and Administrative Enforcement Law.[110]

Tian Ying, a street vendor beaten
by chengguan officers in Shenyang in mid-2007, told Human Rights Watch
that she was given no explanation for their actions. “They did not
explain [the violation] to me. They would not even talk to you, but just dash
up to seize your goods.”[111] Cui Aiping, a migrant street vendor from Henan
province who sells beef kebabs in Beijing, said that the chengguan who
assaulted him in July 2010 likewise failed to provide any legal justification
for their actions. “No reason was given. They never told me what crime I
had committed. In fact, up to this day, I still do not know if doing this
business is legal or not.”[112]

In encounters that
turn violent, chengguan themselves sometimes become the victims. Our
research turned up four cases in which chengguan were killed in the
course of their duties in recent years.

In 2006, a Beijing
street vendor named Cui Yingjie stabbed a chengguan officer, Lu
Zhiqiang, during a scuffle while Lu was attempting to confiscate Cui’s
cart. A Beijing court subsequently sentenced Cui to the death penalty with a
reprieve of two years, a sentence that often leads to eventual commuting of the
death penalty. The relatively lenient sentence was due to video footage of the
incident which indicated that Cui’s actions were not premeditated. In
January 2010, in Shanghai, a migrant street vendor surnamed Zhang stabbed to
death a chengguan officer surnamed Ju in an altercation sparked by the chengguan
officer’s effort to get Zhang to stop selling at a subway station exit.
The Chongqing municipal government recorded 86 incidents in 2010 in which chengguan
officers were hospitalized from violence incurred in the course of their work.

In May 2011, a
Shenyang court sentenced street vendor Xia Junfeng to the death penalty for the
May 2009 murder of two chengguan officers who had detained him for
illegal vending. Xia claimed self-defense and insisted that the chengguan
officers had “beat me into a rage.” Xia’s lawyer, Teng Biao,
described the two murdered chengguan officers as “victims of the
urban management system.”

Professor Cai Dingjian at
China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing has asserted that all chengguan
use of force is unlawful: “No one is authorized to use violence in China
except soldiers and police. By resorting to violence, chengguan have
actually violated the law.”[113] As the cases above suggest, however, there are
instances in which chengguan themselves come under serious attack and,
in such cases, the use of force in self-defense may be justified. Article 20 of
China’s Criminal Law permits all Chinese citizens to use force in legitimate
self-defense[114] and may actually allow chengguan greater
latitude than others due to their responsibility to enforce regulations aimed at
protecting public health and safety. Article 20 stipulates that citizens
“shall not bear criminal responsibility” in situations in which
they “stop an unlawful
infringement in order to prevent the interests of the State and the public from being infringed, or his own or another person’s personal rights, property rights, or other rights from being infringed” to the extent the use of defensive force is
“necessary” rather than excessive.[115]

While the cases cited immediately above illustrate that chengguan
at times face lethal threats and can be justified in using physical force in
self-defense, in most of the cases we and others have investigated, chengguan
have used force against alleged administrative wrongdoers not in self-defense,
or even as a necessary adjunct to their duties, but excessively, as a form of
punishment. Such abuses cannot be justified under article 20 or other
provisions of Chinese law.

Illegal Detention

Chengguan have no legal basis
to detain alleged violators of administrative regulations: the Administrative
Penalty Law, which is the foundation of chengguan law enforcement
powers, explicitly limits powers of detention and arrest to China’s
public security organs.[116]But two of the 25 people interviewed by Human Rights
Watch reported that they were illegally detained by chengguan personnel.
Another two interviewees said that chengguan had attempted to detain
them, but they had successfully resisted those efforts. In each of the four cases,
the interviewees were beaten while detained or while attempting to resist detention.
Prominent Chinese human rights lawyer Teng Biao argues that chengguan
detention of suspects also violates article 238 of China’s Criminal Law,[117] a provision that makes violators liable for severe
punishment.[118]

Ma Dong, who sells pancakes
from a street-cart in central Beijing, told Human Rights Watch of his detention
by chengguan officers in November 2009:

The chengguan
officers loaded the pushcart I used for selling pancakes, my baking pan, eggs,
and other belongings into their vehicle. They also pushed and dragged me into
it, too. They verbally abused me while pushing me into the vehicle, and I was
also knocked into the vehicle. I couldn’t get water to drink when at the
[chengguan] brigade office. The chengguan officers did not
explain the reason [for my detention]. They only said that peddling is not
allowed here. They did not tell me how long I would be detained for. [My
detention lasted] from around 10am to about 6pm, until my wife arrived. As I
was leaving, the chengguan officer threatened me, saying that if he ever
catches me peddling on the streets again, I will have to face heavy
consequences.[119]

A Shenyang street sausage
vendor, Liao Rong, told Human Rights Watch of the ordeal endured by her husband
after he was detained by chengguan officers on May 16, 2009:

We had chosen to set up our
stall at one end of [Shengyang’s] Nanlejiao Road. We usually chose to set
up our stall … in the afternoon, because that’s when the chengguan
officers would return home for lunch, so none would be on patrol. We had never
run into chengguan officers before that [time]. We set out at 10:30am
and arrived at the road at 10:40am. Shortly after, the chengguan
officers arrived. There were four vehicles with 12 officers. They got out and
wanted to confiscate our cart. After removing the cart, they held us down [on
the street] and we cried “Please show us mercy, big brother. We will
definitely not peddle again.” They pinned me down, beat me, and started
shoving my husband, pushing against his shoulder. They surrounded us. Whenever
[one of the chengguan present] came up to us he would give us a kick, or
even hit us. Even passersby were yelling “Stop beating them! How inhuman
of you to beat a woman!” At that time, they had dragged my husband into a
[chengguan] car—I remember the sole of his shoe had fallen off.
They didn’t tell me how long he would be detained for. The chengguan
office is a street away from the road junction where we were selling fried
sausages. [The chengguan] dragged my husband to the [chengguan]
office and started asking him if he had an urban or rural hukou. A
[second] chengguan officer entered the room and both of them started
kicking my husband. That lasted between one and two minutes. My husband was
kneeling on the floor … he never once lifted his head.[120]

The vendors decided against
filing a police report or pursuing compensation for the beating due to a belief
that such efforts would be ignored by the relevant authorities. “Even
when such cases [of chengguan violence] are reported, the police would
not come … [and chengguan] will never give compensation.”[121]

Jiang Jianguo, a 44-year-old
migrant street vendor from Hebei province interviewed by Human Rights Watch, resisted
chengguan efforts to detain him in central Beijing in August 2009.
Although he successfully avoided detention, his resistance resulted in a
beating:

I was selling watermelons.
Usually no one would [bother us], the chengguan officer would drive past
us several times to intimidate us, but this is merely a symbolic gesture. This
time, unexpectedly, the chengguan officers drove toward us. The other
vendors and hawkers with three-wheel scooters fled into an alley. But I was on
a three-wheel tractor and I still had stools and tables placed around, so I
wasn’t able to leave. The five or six chengguan officers who
approached me were very harsh. They instructed me to follow their vehicle using
my three-wheel tractor. I refused and claimed that I was waiting for someone.
Before I could finish speaking, two chengguan officers flung away the
cloth covering my vehicle, grabbed two watermelons, and threw them down [on the
ground]. They also kicked over the tables and stools. The ground was covered in
bright red watermelon bits. I scolded them, saying they were bandits robbing
me. They wanted to drag me up to the chengguan vehicle but my
daughter-in-law got nervous. She went to appeal to them [to release me] and
then started getting into a scuffle with them. They pushed my daughter-in-law
to the ground and [so] I started to fight with them, but was unable to prevail.
They kicked me several times and pinned my hands behind my back as if I were a
criminal. They wanted to take me to the chengguan vehicle, but I refused
to get in because I’ve heard that once you get into the vehicle, they
would draw the curtains and demand that you pay a fine. If you refuse to pay,
they will beat you up.[122]

Jiang did not pursue any
legal or compensation claims against the chengguan officers who
assaulted him, believing that compared to more serious cases of the use of excessive
force by chengguan, “my case can be considered trivial.”[123] Jiang expressed anger at what he perceived as the
arbitrary and unchecked power of chengguan. “The chengguan
officers do whatever first comes to mind. If they are feeling happy, they will
let you go. If they are not feeling good, they will take out their frustrations
on the vendors and hawkers.”[124]

Cai Xue, a 32-year-old street
vendor from Henan province, had a similar experience when chengguan
officers attempted to detain her in October 2010 while she was selling grapes
from the back of a cart in central Beijing.

It was around 11:30am when
they drew up in a [chengguan] vehicle. Sitting in it were four people,
including a man in plainclothes. Like bandits, they just came up and made a
grab for my belongings. They climbed onto the vehicle and just started grabbing
without any explanation. They seized my grapes. They said it was illegal to
sell on the streets. I replied saying … [that] I would not set up a stall
here again. The [chengguan] team leader said that’s not
permissible and wanted me to get into their vehicle. Three [chengguan
officers] began to kick me, with each person taking a turn. They threw me from
my vehicle into the middle of the road. My body had turned black and blue where
they had kicked. Three of them kept cursing, [saying to me], “Fxxx your
mother. You dare ask for a reason?” The other chengguan officer, a
woman, did not utter a word. She came over because she wanted to stop them from
hitting me. They did not confiscate the cart, but they seized all the grapes
and threw them all around on the ground.[125]

Police eventually arrived on
the scene, criticized the chengguan for “incorrect”
procedures, and advised the vendor that she could sue the chengguan
officers who had abused her if she was “dissatisfied with their law
enforcement method.”[126] However, the police took no action to interview or
detain the chengguan officers who had beaten her and destroyed her
property, and subsequently allowed the chengguan officers to leave the
scene without any consequences.[127] Like other victims of chengguan violence, the
vendor decried their arbitrary, violent law enforcement methods. “I
believe that as law enforcement officers, [chengguan] should enforce the
law, but they should not beat people.”[128]

Abuses Accompanying Confiscation of Goods

Chengguan frequently confiscate goods from street vendors.
There is legal authority for such confiscations, but it is vague. The
Administrative Penalty Law stipulates that “administrative organs”
tasked with administrative regulation enforcement can confiscate “illegal
gains … unlawful property … or things of value,” but does not
provide any specific criteria for those categories.[129] The
Administrative Enforcement Law provides general criteria for confiscations[130]—chengguan may seize premises,
facilities, or properties related to the “illegal acts” (with the
exception of “daily necessities,” which may not be
confiscated)—and stipulates the process by which seizure and confiscation
should occur.[131]

[According to Wang Jianping,
a professor of law at Sichuan University, China’s Property Law[132]
emphasizes the inviolable nature of private property and should be interpreted
to prohibit “[confiscation of] peddler’s merchandise and dealing
wares.”[133]
Renmin University law professor Wang Yi has similarly argued that the Property Rights Law
protects all citizens, including unlicensed street vendors, from arbitrary
confiscation of their belongings.[134]

Regardless of whether
confiscation of goods is legal or appropriate in any given case, however, such
confiscation should never be conducted with unnecessary violence. As detailed
below, our research shows a number of instances in which chengguan
confiscation of goods was accompanied by beatings and other abusive behavior.

A 36-year-old migrant vendor
from Henan, Li Jiawen, suffered injury when chengguan confiscated her
three-wheel cart loaded with corn on November 20, 2010, in Beijing.[135]

Around 4pm, the chengguan officers came over to
confiscate the three-wheeler. My wife held on to the vehicle and refused to let
go of it. Three or four chengguan officers went up to her. They twisted
her arm, breaking the little finger on her left hand. We lost our vehicle and
the corn in it.[136]

The victim’s husband
said that Beijing municipal police subsequently arrived on the scene and
brokered a medical compensation payment by the district chengguan
authorities of 4,500 Yuan (US$705) for his wife.[137]

Wang Weiwei, a 41-year-old
female migrant vendor from Hubei province who sells vegetables on the streets
of central Beijing, told Human Rights Watch of the hazards she faced when
resisting chengguan confiscation of her goods in April 2010:

I had set up my vegetable
stall on the ground by the road. Three or four chengguan offices came
over, wanting to raid my vegetable stall, but I defended it and refused to let
them have it. They came up wanting to grab it by force; we got into a scuffle
and started fighting. They verbally abused and beat me. They said that the sale
of vegetables on the street is not allowed and that this is a regulation. I was
beaten up. They hit me in the head and face and my nose was bleeding. They
punched me in the face until my face was swollen.[138]

With police assistance Wang
was subsequently able to negotiate for 500 Yuan (US$78) in medical compensation
from the chengguan officers who beat her.

Even compliance with a chengguan
confiscation operation is no guarantee of immunity from physical violence. A
36-year-old female spring roll vendor in Shenyang, Liao Meihua, told Human
Rights Watch that she was beaten by chengguan officers in mid-2007
despite her lack of resistance when they confiscated her belongings.

It was at
[Shengyang’s] Southern Gate. I had gone there at noon, during lunchtime,
although I’m usually afraid to do so [because of the threat of chengguan].
The chengguan officers said to me “How daring of you to come here
at lunchtime.” They confiscated my belongings and though I offered to pay
them [a fine], the chengguan officers said “We don’t want
money, it’s too late for that.” Six of the seven [chengguan
officers] surrounded me; once their leader arrived, all his junior [officers]
came up and started kicking me, causing me to fall. Many passersby witnessed it
and they were all asking the officers to stop hitting me.[139]

Wang Xiangwei, a 31-year-old
migrant street vendor from Henan province who sells barbecue kebab skewers in
central Beijing, described what ensued when chengguan officers attempted
to confiscate his scooter in July 2010.

[It was] at around 9pm.
There were several people around me, waiting to buy skewers. I was still
grilling the skewers when the chengguan arrived. The other street
vendors and hawkers dispersed into the alleys, but I did not run away. Two [chengguan]
came up to me and pressed me to the ground. They wanted to confiscate my scooter,
but I refused to let them do so. I started to resist, using my forearms to push
away [one of the] chengguan officers, who then used the back of his hand
to slap me so hard that my glasses fell off. When the other two chengguan
saw us fighting, they came up together to pin me down on the ground, and [the
third chengguan officer] ran off, pushing the scooter along.[140]

The chengguan officers
who confiscated Wang’s scooter returned it to him later that evening
after he paid a 150 Yuan (US$23.50) fine.[141] That sum exceeded the upper limit for summary
on-the-spot fines of 50 Yuan (US$7.9) and the officers failed to give a legal
justification for the confiscation and fine as required by the Administrative
Penalties Law.[142]

A 31-year-old male migrant
fruit vendor from Henan province, Xie Dongfeng, told Human Rights Watch that
what appeared to be plainclothes “hired assistants” of chengguan
officers beat him after he resisted chengguan efforts to confiscate his
three-wheel vending cart for “operating without a license.”[143]

[The chengguan]
wanted to confiscate my three-wheel cart, but I refused to let them do so. They
jumped onto the vehicle, started stomping on the fruit and making threats. Some
abused me verbally, saying “Fxxx your mother. Who allowed you to peddle
goods here?” I did not dare utter a word as there were so many of them.
If I dared answer back, wouldn’t they beat me up? The chengguan
officers didn’t hit me; instead they had two hired assistants beat me up.
One held me down while the other hit me. I didn’t dare retaliate as there
were yet more of them in the [chengguan] cars. I was beaten until my
nose bled.[144]

Impunity

At least 18 people were
killed in the course of chengguan law enforcement operations between
September 2000 and June 2010 according to an unofficial estimate compiled by
human rights lawyer Teng Biao in July 2010.[145] The majority of those deaths allegedly were due to
injuries the victims suffered during beatings by chengguan personnel.[146] Media reports suggest that in many such cases, the
alleged perpetrators were not investigated or prosecuted or, if prosecuted,
received light sentences.[147]

The most notorious incident
of chengguan violence resulting in the death of a citizen in recent
years was the beating of Wei Wenhua in Tianmen, Hubei province. In the late
afternoon of January 7, 2008, Wei Wenhua stopped his car to take pictures with
his mobile phone camera of a roadside confrontation involving a group of at
least 50 Tianmen chengguan. The chengguan were facing off with
some residents of nearby Wanba village, who were attempting to block access to
a waste dump site near their homes. When the chengguan noticed Wei
filming the confrontation, 20 to 30 of them rushed over to him and began
beating him.[148] A witness said that Wei repeatedly screamed “I surrender”
during the assault.[149] Wei subsequently died of his injuries.[150] On November 10, 2009, a Hebei court sentenced four of
the chengguan officers implicated in Wei’s killing to prison terms
of three to six years.[151] The court granted leniency to Wei’s killers on
the grounds that Wei had allegedly died of a heart attack triggered by the
beating, rather than the beating itself.[152]

Local government authorities
themselves have been unwilling to make an example of chengguan personnel
who have been found legally responsible for deaths or serious injuries. On July
15, 2011, a group of chengguan officers in Linhai city, Zhejiang
province, attempted to detain a street vendor selling grapes. One chengguan
officer chased the vendor, apprehended him, pushed him to the ground, and
kicked him until he passed out. The vendor was hospitalized with a perforated
intestine. A Linhai government official later defended the chengguan
officer who allegedly delivered the beating, insisting that the vendor’s
injuries were unintentional and occurred when a “law enforcement officer
accidentally stepped on [the vendor’s] stomach.”[153]

In numerous other well documented
cases, chengguan implicated in unprovoked violence against citizens have
been spared serious legal repercussions for their actions. On May 21, 2011, a
roadside fruit vendor named Li Yong in Shenzhen resisted chengguan
demands that he move his stall. Witnesses said a chengguan officer
instructed his subordinates to “beat him [Li Yong], take everything
away.” In plain sight of multiple witnesses, Chengguan officers
proceeded to beat Li Yong on the head with their batons, resulting in head
injuries. Shenzhen chengguan authorities subsequently paid Li Yong 7,000
Yuan (US$1,098) in compensation. However, no chengguan officials were arrested
for the violence and the chengguan official in charge of the area where
the assault occurred later insisted that Li’s injuries “were likely
accidental.”[154]

On July 11, 2009, a group of
five Shanghai chengguan attempted to confiscate the stock of roadside
watermelon vendor Peng Lin. Peng resisted and at one point allegedly brandished
a knife to try to protect his goods. The chengguan responded by dragging
Peng to their van where they proceeded to beat him senseless. The beating left
Peng with serious brain and neck injuries. Peng reportedly remains paralyzed
and barely conscious.[155] A Shanghai court sentenced the five chengguan
officers responsible for Peng’s injuries to prison terms of between
three-and-a-half and five years on April 15, 2010.[156]

Popular perceptions that chengguan
rarely get punished for abuses deter victims from pursuing legal action against
them. Ten of the 25 victims of chengguan abuses interviewed by Human
Rights Watch opted to not pursue legal action or civil compensation claims against
their chengguan abusers. Their reasons for inaction ranged from
perceptions that complaining to or about chengguan was “no use …
[because the authorities] cover-up for each other”[157] to an assessment that there are “too many such
incidents” that go legally unchallenged.[158] Liao Meihua, a Shenyang street vendor who has been a
victim of chengguan violence “five or six times” since 2007,
told Human Rights Watch that fear of retribution prevented her from attempting
to seek legal action against or compensation from chengguan for such
abuses.

I’m really afraid of applying for compensation. I
still have to make a living – what am I to do the next time I run into [chengguan]?
They will be more brutal the next time. They will beat you up and tell you:
“You can sue at whatever place you wish.” They are not scared at
all.[159]

III. Relevant
International and Domestic Legal Standards

The abuses documented in this
report, including beatings, threats, arbitrary detention, and extortion, are
prohibited under Chinese and international law. Some of the relevant standards
and instruments include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the
United Nations’ Code of
Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the
UN Basic Principles on the
Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, and the
UN standards for Treatment of Offenders; the UN Body of Principles for All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment; and the Constitution of the People’s
Republic of China.

Excessive Force

None of the Chinese laws and
directives that directly govern the operations of the chengguan regulate
their use of force. Two non-binding but universally accepted international
standards are relevant to regulating the use of force by chengguan. The
first is the 1979 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the
UN General Assembly. The code stipulates that in the performance of their duty,
law enforcement officials shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain
and uphold the human rights of all persons. Specifically, such officials may
use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the
performance of their duty, a standard that implies the use of force should be
exceptional, and strictly proportionate to the legitimate object to be
achieved. Law enforcement officials are also bound to refrain from corrupt acts
and oppose and combat all such acts.[160]

The 1990 UN Basic Principles
on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, a non-binding
standard that is nonetheless widely recognized as articulating universal norms,
enjoin governments to “adopt and implement rules and regulations on the
use of force … [and] keep the ethical issues associated with the use of
force and firearms constantly under review.”[161] The Basic Principles also commit law enforcement
officials to “as far as possible, apply non-violent means before
resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms
only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the
intended result.”[162] The Basic Principles also enumerate specific circumstances
under which law enforcement officials may lawfully use force, reiterating the
Code’s requirements of proportionality and necessity.[163]

Prohibition of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment and Torture

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that
“No one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment,”[164]
while the ICCPR prohibits “torture or ... cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.”[165] The
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment protects detainees from “violence, threats or
methods of interrogation which impair his capacity of decision or his
judgment.”[166] The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials
also prohibits inflicting, instigating, or tolerating “any Act of torture
or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[167]

The brutal beatings chengguan
have inflicted on some of their victims may be severe enough to meet the
definition of torture under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which China has been party since 1988.
Under this treaty;

The term torture means any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a
confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third
person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain
or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity.[168]

The Convention against
Torture also prohibits states from inflicting “cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment.”[169]

Due Process and Arbitrary Detention

Due process of law requires
that government officials or security forces who detain or arrest someone or
impose a penalty on someone identify themselves and provide the legal basis for
their actions.

The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits arbitrary arrest[170] and requires that arrest and detention be “in
accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”[171] The ICCPR also requires that any individuals arrested
or detained by police or security forces have access “without
delay” to a court hearing to determine the legality of their detention
and that they be released if their detention is ruled unlawful.[172]The UN Human Rights Committee,
which documents ICCPR compliance, has interpreted this provision to apply
“to all deprivations of liberty, whether in criminal cases or in other
cases such as, for example, mental illness, vagrancy, drug addiction, educational
purposes, immigration control, etc.”[173] China has signed, but not ratified, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The detention of people by chengguan
authorities is illegal under Chinese law. Article 37 of the Constitution of the
People’s Republic of China states that arrests must be conducted
“with the approval or by decision of a people’s procuratorate or by
decision of a people’s court and arrests must be made by a public
security organ.” Article 38 of the constitution prohibits “false
charge or frame-up” of any Chinese citizens. China’s Police Law
limits police powers of interrogation and detention strictly to those suspected
of criminal offences.[174] Police powers of detention and arrest are tightly
circumscribed by China’s Criminal Procedure Law, which requires approval
for arrests from the People’s Procuratorate or a public court[175] as well as an arrest warrant which the police must
display at the time of arrest.[176]

Impunity

Police tolerance of and
complicity in chengguan acts of physical violence and unauthorized
detention violates provisions of China’s Police Law and Administrative
Penalties Law. The Police Law obligates Chinese police to “prevent, stop
and investigate illegal and criminal activities.”[177] Police who fail to do so are guilty of
“dereliction of duty” and face administrative sanctions and/or
criminal prosecution.[178] Detention of alleged administrative law violators is also
inconsistent with the objectives of the Chinese government’s National
Human Rights Action Plan (2009-2010), which provides in relevant part:

The State prohibits illegal
detention by law enforcement personnel. Wrongful or prolonged detention shall
be prevented. The State will [provide economic compensation],[179] legal remedies and rehabilitation to victims. Those
who are responsible for illegal, wrongful or prolonged detention shall be
subjected to inquiry and punished if found culpable.[180]

Acknowledgments

This report was edited by
Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch, and reviewed by Joseph
Saunders, deputy program director, and Dinah PoKempner, general counsel.

Human Rights Watch wishes to
thank several donors for their support including David A. Jones, Jr., Mary and
Michael E. Gellert, James H. Ottaway, Jr., Anita and David Keller, and The
Silicon Valley Community Foundation, as well as a very generous anonymous
donor.

Above all, thanks go to the
victims of chengguan abuse who made this report possible by agreeing to
meet and share their experiences with us at length, often at considerable
personal risk.

Human Rights Watch is an independent international organization
that monitors human rights in more than 90 countries around the world. We are
currently preparing a report about human rights abuses allegedly perpetrated by
Urban Management Law

Enforcement (城管执法)
personnel.

Human Rights Watch conducted 25 interviews with victims in
six cities in China between mid-2009 and 2011 to document a number of violent
abuses by chengguan personnel. Our findings echo reports in
China’s state media that alleged chengguan personnel have
committed abuses. A Google search for Chinese-language references to chengguan
produces literally millions of entries for “chengguan beat
people” (城管打人).
We note that public resentment toward chengguan abuses have fueled a
number of increasingly violent protests by citizens angered by perceived chengguan
excesses and perceptions of their impunity.

Below are some of our main findings:

Physical Violence and Torture

Chengguan personnel are accused of using excessive
force against and publicly humiliating people. Seventeen of the twenty-five
victims of chengguan abuse interviewed by Human Rights Watch claimed to
be victims of excessive force. That excessive force, often inflicted in sight
of multiple eye-witnesses, included being slapped, shoved, pushed to the
ground, forcibly held down on the ground, dragged, punched, kicked, and thrown
from vehicles to the street. Those beatings resulted in injuries ranging from
bruises, cuts, and bloody noses to broken bones.

Illegal detention

Chengguan have no legal basis to detain individuals
alleged to have violated administrative regulations; the Law on Administrative
Penalty, which is the foundation of chengguan law enforcement powers,
explicitly limits powers of detention and arrest to China’s public
security organs. But two of the twenty-five people interviewed by Human Rights
Watch reported that they were illegally detained by chengguan personnel.
Another two interviewees said that chengguan had attempted to detain
them, but that the interviewees had successfully resisted those efforts. In
each of those cases, those interviewees were victims of physical violence
during their detention or while attempting to resist it. The prominent Chinese
human rights lawyer Teng Biao has noted that chengguan violations of
legal restrictions on the detention of suspects also constitute violations of
article 238 of China’s Criminal Law and make violators liable for severe
punishment.

Abuses accompanying confiscation of goods

Chengguan frequently confiscate goods from street
vendors. There is legal authority for such confiscations, but it is vague.
Regardless of whether confiscation of goods is legal or appropriate in any
given case, however, such confiscation should never be conducted with
unnecessary violence. As detailed below, our research shows a number of
instances in which chengguan confiscation of goods was accompanied by
beatings and other abusive behavior.

Impunity

At least 18 people have been killed in the course of chengguan
law enforcement operations between September 2000 and June 2010, according to
an unofficial estimate compiled by the human rights lawyer Teng Biao in July
2010. The majority of those deaths have been the result of injuries allegedly
inflicted by beatings by chengguan personnel. Media reports suggest that
in numerous incidents where citizens have died following alleged chengguan
violence, the suspected perpetrators were not investigated or sanctioned with
appropriately serious penalties.

We would welcome any information or feedback the Public
Security Bureau could provide regarding these issues as well as any steps it
has taken or plans to take to address them. We would also appreciate your
responses to the questions raised below as well as any additional information
you wish to provide us.

Human Rights Watch strives to reflect all perspectives in
our research and looks forward to your response. In light of our publishing
schedule, we would be grateful to receive your response by Friday, April 27,
2012. Please send your response to Sophie Richardson, China director in the
Asia division, by email at richars@hrw.org
or by fax at +1-202-612-4333.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, and
we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Sophie Richardson

China Director, Human Rights Watch

How many cities and municipalities in China currently have chengguan
enforcement? What is the total number of chengguan personnel in China?

What is the separation of powers of enforcement between Public
Security Bureau and chengguan enforcement? In what ways can and do PSB
personnel and chengguan cooperate in administrative regulation
enforcement?

Has the PSB been recording cases of chengguan excessive
force against street vendors and others during administrative enforcement
operations? If so, could you please supply us statistics on arrest and
prosecution of chengguan personnel in such situations between 1997-2011?

What is the PSB doing in order to prevent chengguan
abuses such as those documented by Human Rights Watch’s research and to
ensure that alleged perpetrators of such abuses are investigated and, where
justified, prosecuted for such abuses?

What legal or regulatory gaps or loopholes make it difficult or
impossible for the PSB to adequately address alleged abuses by chengguan
personnel? If such gaps exist, how could they be addressed in order to improve
the ability of the PSB to prevent and investigate such abuses?

In your opinion, is the chengguan
actually necessary as an administrative enforcement agency? Could and/or should
chengguan duties be fulfilled by PSB personnel?

Human Rights Watch is an independent international
organization that monitors human rights in more than 90 countries around the
world. We are currently preparing a report about human rights abuses allegedly
perpetrated by Urban Management Law Enforcement (城管执法) personnel.

Human Rights Watch conducted 25 interviews with victims in
six cities in China between mid-2009 and 2011 to document a number of violent
abuses by chengguan personnel. Our findings echo reports in
China’s state media that alleged chengguan personnel have
committed abuses. A Google search for Chinese-language references to chengguan
produces literally millions of entries for “chengguan beat
people” (城管打人).
We note that public resentment toward chengguan abuses have fueled a
number of increasingly violent protests by citizens angered by perceived chengguan
excesses and perceptions of their impunity.

Below are some of our main findings:

Physical Violence and Torture

Chengguan personnel are accused of using excessive
force against and publicly humiliating people. Seventeen of the twenty-five
victims of chengguan abuse interviewed by Human Rights Watch claimed to
be victims of excessive force. That excessive force, often inflicted in sight
of multiple eye-witnesses, included being slapped, shoved, pushed to the
ground, forcibly held down on the ground, dragged, punched, kicked, and thrown
from vehicles to the street. Those beatings resulted in injuries ranging from
bruises, cuts, and bloody noses to broken bones.

Illegal detention

Chengguan have no legal basis to detain individuals
alleged to have violated administrative regulations; the Law on Administrative
Penalty, which is the foundation of chengguan law enforcement powers,
explicitly limits powers of detention and arrest to China’s public
security organs. But two of the twenty-five people interviewed by Human Rights
Watch reported that they were illegally detained by chengguan personnel.
Another two interviewees said that chengguan had attempted to detain
them, but that the interviewees had successfully resisted those efforts. In
each of those cases, those interviewees were victims of physical violence
during their detention or while attempting to resist it. The prominent Chinese
human rights lawyer Teng Biao has noted that chengguan violations of
legal restrictions on the detention of suspects also constitute violations of
article 238 of China’s Criminal Law and make violators liable for severe
punishment.

Abuses accompanying confiscation of goods

Chengguan frequently confiscate goods from street
vendors. There is legal authority for such confiscations, but it is vague.
Regardless of whether confiscation of goods is legal or appropriate in any
given case, however, such confiscation should never be conducted with
unnecessary violence. As detailed below, our research shows a number of
instances in which chengguan confiscation of goods was accompanied by
beatings and other abusive behavior.

Impunity

At least 18 people have been killed in the course of chengguan
law enforcement operations between September 2000 and June 2010, according to
an unofficial estimate compiled by the human rights lawyer Teng Biao in July
2010. The majority of those deaths have been the result of injuries allegedly
inflicted by beatings by chengguan personnel. Media reports suggest that
in numerous incidents where citizens have died following alleged chengguan
violence, the suspected perpetrators were not investigated or sanctioned with
appropriately serious penalties.

We would welcome any information or feedback the Public
Security Bureau could provide regarding these issues as well as any steps it
has taken or plans to take to address them. We would also appreciate your
responses to the questions raised below as well as any additional information
you wish to provide us.

Human Rights Watch strives to reflect all perspectives in
our research and looks forward to your response. In light of our publishing
schedule, we would be grateful to receive your response by Friday, April 27,
2012. Please send your response to Sophie Richardson, China director in the
Asia division, by email at richars@hrw.org
or by fax at +1-202-612-4333.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, and
we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Sophie Richardson

China Director, Human Rights Watch

How many cities and municipalities in China currently have chengguan
enforcement? What is the total number of chengguan personnel in China?

What is the separation of powers of enforcement between Public
Security Bureau and chengguan enforcement? In what ways can and do PSB
personnel and chengguan cooperate in administrative regulation
enforcement?

Has the PSB been recording cases of chengguan excessive
force against street vendors and others during administrative enforcement
operations? If so, could you please supply us statistics on arrest and
prosecution of chengguan personnel in such situations between 1997-2011?

What is the PSB doing in order to prevent chengguan
abuses such as those documented by Human Rights Watch’s research and to
ensure that alleged perpetrators of such abuses are investigated and, where
justified, prosecuted for such abuses?

What legal or regulatory gaps or loopholes make it difficult or
impossible for the PSB to adequately address alleged abuses by chengguan
personnel? If such gaps exist, how could they be addressed in order to improve
the ability of the PSB to prevent and investigate such abuses?

In your opinion, is the chengguan actually necessary as
an administrative enforcement agency? Could and/or should chengguan
duties be fulfilled by PSB personnel?

[7]中华人民共和国行政府处罚法, 1996年３月17日第八届全国人民代表大会第四次会议通过1996年3月17日中华人民共和国主席令第六十三号公布，自1996年10月1日起施行
(Law of the People’s Republic
of China on Administrative Penalty, adopted on March 17, 1996 and effective on
October 1, 1996), http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/207307.htm
(accessed April 8, 2012).

[9]国务院1996年4月15日《国务院关于贯彻实施〈中华人民共和国行政处罚法〉的通知（国发［1996］13号）(Circular of the State Council Regarding the Implementation of Law
of the People’s Republic of China on
Administrative Punishments, effective on April 15, 1996), http://www.sse.com.cn/sseportal/dmxh/xz_new_20030803g.pdf
(accessed April 8, 2012);

国务院1999年11月18日《关于全面推进依法行政的决定》（国发〔1999〕23号）(Decision on Pushing Forward Administration by Law in an All-Round
Way, effective on November 18, 1999), http://www.js-n-tax.gov.cn/publicinfo/PubLicInfoDetail.aspx?Id=5679
(accessed April 9, 2012);

国务院办公厅 2000年 9月 8日《关于继续做好相对集中行政处罚权试点工作的通知》（国办发（2000）63号文）(Circular of the State Council on Continued Pilot Work on Relative
Centralization of Power to Impose Administrative Penalty, effective on
September 8, 2000), http://www.zszfj.gov.cn/show.asp?newsid=44
(accessed April 9, 2012);

[12]国务院1996年4月15日《国务院关于贯彻实施〈中华人民共和国行政处罚法〉的通知（国发［1996］13号）[Circular of the State Council Regarding the Implementation of Law
of the People’s Republic of China on
Administrative Punishments, effective on April 15, 1996, No. 13, (3)], para. 2, http://www.sse.com.cn/sseportal/dmxh/xz_new_20030803g.pdf
(accessed April 8, 2012).

[13]The Chinese government classifies former
employees of struggling state-owned firms as laid-off or “xia gang” (下岗) rather than officially unemployed because their former employers
are expected to provide them with aliving allowance. However, many of the laid-off workers have to
fight to secure those basic benefits as struggling state-sector firms
shortchange employees to stave off bankruptcy. Owen Brown, “Job Creation
Emerges As Priority For China’s New
Leaders,” Dow Jones Newswires, October 4, 2002.

[16]中华人民共和国行政府处罚法,
1996年3月17日第八届全国人民代表大会第四次会议通过1996年3月17日中华人民共和国主席令第六十三号公布，自1996年10月1日起施行 (Law of the People’s
Republic of China on Administrative Penalty, adopted on March 17, 1996 and effective on October 1, 1996),
http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/207307.htm (accessed April 8, 2012).

(Decision of the State Council on
the Work of Further Promotion of Relative Centralization of Power to Impose
Administrative Penalty, effective on August 22, 2002, No. 17), art. 2. The eight categories of chengguan
enforcement stipulated by the State Council, China’s cabinet, are as
follows: environmental hygiene, urban planning, urban
beautification, city administration, environmental protection, industrial
operations, traffic law enforcement, and unspecified
“other administrative punishment” areas deemed appropriate by
provincial, autonomous region, and municipal governments.

[32]中华人民共和国行政强制法, 已由中华人民共和国第十一届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十一次会议于2011年6月30日通过，现予公布，自2012年1月1日起施行。(Administrative Enforcement Law of the People’s Republic of China, adopted on June 30, 2011 and effective on
January 1, 2012), http://www.gov.cn/flfg/2011-07/01/content_1897308.htm
(accessed April 9, 2012).

[33]Choi Chi-yui, “NPC again considers
law to rein in violent city administrators,” South China Morning Post
(Hong Kong), April 22, 2011.

[35]Law on Administrative Enforcement, art.
2. “Administrative enforcement refers to the performance of obligations
as legally enforced by administrative organs or by the people’s courts upon applications of administrative organs against
citizens, legal persons or other organizations which do not perform
administrative decisions.”

[36]
Ibid. Article 12 of the Law on Administrative Enforcement
lists the following “manners of administrative enforcement”:

“(1) Fines or late fees;
(2) Transfer of deposits or remittances;
(3) Auction or legal disposition of premises, facilities or properties that are
seized or impounded;
(4) Removal of obstructions or restitution;
(5) Performance on behalf of the party concerned; and
(6) Other manners of enforcement.”

[37] Ibid. “Administrative compulsory measures refer to the
temporary restriction of the personal freedom of citizens or temporary control
of the property of citizens, legal persons or other organizations according to
law by administrative organs in the process of administration for such purposes
as stopping illegal acts, preventing destruction of evidence, avoiding damage
and containing expansion of danger.” Article 10 of the Law on Administrative
Enforcement specifies the following administrative compulsory measures:
“(1) Restricting the personal
freedom of a citizen;
(2) Seizing premises, facilities or property;
(3) Impounding property;
(4) Freezing deposits or remittances; and
(5) Other administrative compulsory measures.”

[38] Ibid., art. 1. “This Law is formulated in accordance with
the Constitution for the purposes of regulating
the setting and implementation of administrative compulsion, guaranteeing and
supervising administrative organs' performance of duties according to law,
maintaining public interests and social order and protecting the legitimate
rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations.”

[39] Ibid., art. 5. “The setting and
implementation of administrative compulsion shall be appropriate. If the
purposes of administration may be achieved by non-compulsory means, no
administrative compulsion shall be set or implemented.”

[40] Ibid., art. 23. “Seizure and
impoundment shall be limited to the case-related premises, facilities or
properties, and no premises, facilities or properties irrelevant to the illegal
acts shall be seized or impounded. The daily necessities of citizens and their
dependents shall not be seized or impounded.
Premises, facilities or property of the party concerned, which have been seized
by any other state organ according to law, shall not be seized
repeatedly.” Ibid., art. 28. “ Under any of the following circumstances, an administrative organ
shall timely make a decision on lifting a seizure or impoundment:
(1) The party concerned has not committed any illegal act;
(2) The seized or impounded premises, facilities or properties are irrelevant
to the illegal act;
(3) The administrative organ has already made a handling decision on the
illegal act, and a seizure or impoundment is no longer necessary;
(4) The term of seizure or impoundment has expired; or
(5) The measure of seizure or impoundment is otherwise no longer necessary.
Where a seizure or impoundment is lifted, the relevant properties shall be
returned immediately. If the fresh goods or other perishable properties have
been auctioned or sold, the proceeds from the auction or sale shall be
refunded. If the selling price is obviously lower than the market price,
causing any loss to the party concerned, compensation shall be made for the
loss.”

[41] Ibid., art. 18. “1) Before
implementation, a report on implementation shall be submitted to the person in
charge of the administrative organ and an approval of implementation shall be
obtained.
(2) An administrative compulsory measure shall be implemented by two or
more law enforcement personnel of the administrative organ.
(3) Law enforcement identity certificates shall be produced.
(4) The party concerned shall be notified to be present.
(5) The party concerned shall be notified on the spot of the reasons and basis
for taking the administrative compulsory measure and the rights of and
remedies available to the party concerned according to law.
(6) The statements and arguments of the party concerned shall be heard.
(7) On-site transcripts shall be made.
(8) The on-site transcripts shall be signed or sealed
by the party concerned and the law enforcement personnel of the administrative
organ, and if the party concerned refuses to do so, it shall be noted in the
transcripts.
9) If the party concerned is not present, witnesses shall be invited to be
present, and the witnesses and the law enforcement personnel of the
administrative organ shall sign or seal the on-site transcripts.
(10) Other procedures as prescribed by laws and regulations.”

[42]Law on Administrative Penalty, art. 13. “Administrative enforcement shall be set by law. Where enforcement
by administrative organs is not provided for by law, the administrative organ
making the relevant administrative decision shall apply to the people's court
for enforcement.”

[43]
Ibid., art. 16. “The State
Council or the people’s government of a
province, autonomous region or municipality directly under the Central Government
that is empowered by the State Council may decide to have an administrative
organ exercise other administrative organs’
power of administrative penalty. However, the power of administrative penalty
involving restriction of freedom of person shall only be exercised by the
public security organs.”

[56]Law on Administrative Penalty, art. 19 (2) stipulates that the
organization which enforces administrative law should “be staffed with
personnel who are familiar with relevant laws, regulations and rules.”

The Circular of the State Council
Regarding the Implementation of Administrative Punishments (1) states that
“All localities and departments shall, in line with the principle of
combining study with practice, pay close attention to the training of
administrative law-enforcing personnel, making the personnel have a good grasp
of the Law on Administrative punishments.”

The Circular of the State Council
Regarding the Implementation of Administrative Punishments (3) states that
local governments should “Strengthen the education of law-enforcing
personnel …making them enhance their sense of
responsibility and consciousness of acting according to law [and] strengthen
the qualifications, certifications and clothing of law-enforcing
personnel.”

[73]The hukou or household
registration system, which remains in force, limits many social benefits to
registered residents of a particular locale. The system has traditionally
imposed stringent controls on the movements of rural residents to urban areas,
and continues to constitute a discriminatory barrier to rural migrants’
access to employment opportunities and social welfare benefits that are legally
granted to those in possession of an urban hukou. International Labor
Organization, “Equality at Work: Tackling the
Challenges. Global Report under the Follow-up of the ILO Declaration of
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work”
(Geneva: ILO 2007), www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/--dcomm/--webdev/documents/publication/wcms_082607.pdf,
pp. 34-35.

[92]“China enacts laws to regulate
administrative power,” Xinhua News Agency, October 27, 2011, http://www.ecns.cn/2011/10-27/3346.shtml
(accessed October 28, 2011). The law “provides a legal basis for the
guarantee and supervision of the administrative organs’ performance of administrative functions and powers in accordance
with the law, as well as the protection of the legitimate rights and interests
of citizens, legal persons and other organizations.”

[110]Law on Administrative Penalty, art.
31.“Before deciding to impose administrative penalties,
administrative organs shall notify the parties of the facts, grounds and basis
according to which the administrative penalties are to be decided and shall
notify the parties of the rights that they enjoy in accordance with the
law.”

Law on Administrative Enforcement,
art. 18 (5).“The party concerned shall be notified on the spot of the
reasons and basis for taking the administrative compulsory measure and the
rights of and remedies available to the party concerned according to
law.”

[114] Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, adopted on
July 1, 1979 and effective on March 14, 1997,http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/207319.htm
(accessed April 8, 2012), art. 20. “An act that a person commits to stop an unlawful infringement in
order to prevent the interests of the State and the public, or his own or other
person’s rights of the person, property or other
rights from being infringed upon by the on-going infringement, thus harming the
perpetrator, is justifiable defence, and he shall not bear criminal
responsibility. If a person’s act of justifiable
defence obviously exceeds the limits of necessity and causes serious damage, he
shall bear criminal responsibility; however, he shall be given a mitigated
punishment or be exempted from punishment. If a person acts in defence
against an on-going assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnap or any other crime
of violence that seriously endangers his personal safety, thus causing injury
or death to the perpetrator of the unlawful act, it is not undue defence, and
he shall not bear criminal responsibility.”

[116]Law on Administrative Penalty, art. 16.
“The State Council or the people’s government of a province, autonomous region or municipality
directly under the Central Government that is empowered by the State Council
may decide to have an administrative organ exercise other administrative organs’ power of administrative penalty. However, the power of
administrative penalty involving restriction of freedom of person shall only be
exercised by the public security organs.”

[117]
Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, adopted on July 1, 1979, revised on March 14, 1997,http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/database/poplaws/law_china/ch_record010.htm
(accessed April 8, 2012), art.
238. “Whoever
unlawfully detains another person or deprives another person of his personal
freedom shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three
years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political
rights. If circumstances of hitting or insulting another person exist, the
offender shall be given a heavier punishment.Whoever, by committing the crime mentioned in the preceding
paragraph, causes severe bodily injure to another person shall be sentenced to
fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than ten years.
If he causes death of another person, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term
imprisonment of not less than ten years. If another person’s deformity or death is caused by violence, the offender shall be
decided a crime and punished according to the provisions of Article 234 or
Article 232 of this Law.Whoever,
for the purpose of extorting the payment of debts, unlawfully detains or
confines another person shall be punished according to the
provisions of the preceding two paragraphs.Whoever from the staff of a state organ takes advantage of his
office to commit a crime mentioned in the preceding three paragraphs shall be
given a heavier punishment according to the provisions of the preceding three
paragraphs.”

[118]“小贩杀死俩城管被判死刑律师辩词催人泪下”，中国青年报(北京)[Vendor sentenced to death for killing two
chengguan; A lawyer’s heartbreaking defense, China Youth Daily(Beijing)] May 10, 2007,
http://law.cyol.com/content/2011-05/10/content_4405224.htm (accessed October
11, 2011).

[129]
Law on Administrative Penalty, art. 8. Types of
administrative penalty shall include (3) confiscation of illegal gains, or
confiscation of unlawful property or things of value.

[130] Law on Administrative Enforcement, art. 23. “Seizure and impoundment shall be limited to the case-related
premises, facilities or properties, and no premises, facilities or properties
irrelevant to the illegal acts shall be seized or impounded. The daily
necessities of citizens and their dependents shall not be seized or impounded.
Premises, facilities or properties of the party concerned, which have been
seized by any other state organ according to law, shall not be seized
repeatedly.”

Ibid., art. 28. “Under any of the following circumstances, an administrative organ
shall timely make a decision on lifting a seizure or impoundment:
(1) The party concerned has not committed any illegal act;
(2) The seized or impounded premises, facilities or properties are irrelevant
to the illegal act;
(3) The administrative organ has already made a handling decision on the illegal
act, and a seizure or impoundment is no longer necessary;
(4) The term of seizure or impoundment has expired; or
(5) The measure of seizure or impoundment is otherwise no longer necessary.
Where a seizure or impoundment is lifted, the relevant properties shall be
returned immediately. If the fresh goods or other perishable properties have
been auctioned or sold, the proceeds from the auction or sale shall be
refunded. If the selling price is obviously lower than the market price,
causing any loss to the party concerned, compensation shall be made for the
loss.”

[131]Law on Administrative Enforcement, art.
18. “1) Before implementation, a report on
implementation shall be submitted to the person in charge of the administrative
organ and an approval of implementation shall be obtained.
(2) An administrative compulsory
measure shall be implemented by two or more law enforcement personnel of the
administrative organ.
(3) Law enforcement identity certificates shall be produced.
(4) The party concerned shall be notified to be present.
(5) The party concerned shall be notified on the spot of the reasons and basis
for taking the administrative compulsory measure and the rights of and
remedies available to the party concerned according to law.
(6) The statements and arguments of the party concerned shall be heard.
(7) On-site transcripts shall be made.
(8) The on-site transcripts shall be signed or sealed
by the party concerned and the law enforcement personnel of the administrative
organ, and if the party concerned refuses to do so, it shall be noted in the
transcripts.
9) If the party concerned is not present, witnesses shall be invited to be
present, and the witnesses and the law enforcement personnel of the
administrative organ shall sign or seal the on-site transcripts.
(10) Other procedures as prescribed by laws and regulations.”

[132]The
Property Law of the People’s Republic of China adopted at the 5th
Session of the10th
National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China
on March 16, 2007 and effective on October 1, 2007, http://www.china.org.cn/china/LegislationsForm2001-2010/2011-02/11/content_21897791.htm
(accessed April 8, 2012).

[142]Law on Administrative Penalty, art. 33. “If the facts about a
violation of law are well-attested and there are legal basis and if, the
citizen involved is to be fined not more than 50 yuan or the legal person or
other organization involved is to be fined not more than 1,000 yuan or a
disciplinary warning is to be given, such administrative penalty may be decided
on the spot. The party shall carry out the decision on administrative penalty
in accordance with the provisions of Articles 46, 47 and 48 of this Law.”

Ibid., art. 34. “If a law-enforcing officer decides to
impose administrative penalty on the spot, he shall show the party his
identification papers for law enforcement, fill out an established and coded
form of decision for administrative penalty. The form of decision for
administrative penalty shall be given to the party on the spot.

In the form of decision for
administrative penalty as stipulated in the preceding paragraph shall be
clearly recorded the illegal act committed by the party, the basis for
administrative penalty, the amount of fine, the time and place, and the title
of the administrative organ. Such form shall also be signed or sealed by the
law-enforcing officer.

Law-enforcing officers must submit
their decisions on administrative penalty made on the spot to the
administrative organs where they belong for the record.”

[161]Basic Principles on the Use of Force and
Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth United Nations
Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27
August to 7 September 1990, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 144/28/Rev.1 at 112 (1990),
General Provisions (1).

[163]Ibid.,
General Provisions (5). “Whenever the lawful use
of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall:

( a )Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the
seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved;

( b )Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life;

( c )Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured
or affected persons at the earliest possible moment;

( d )Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected
person are notified at the earliest possible moment.”

Ibid., General Provisions (6). “Where injury or death is
caused by the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials, they
shall report the incident promptly to their superiors, in accordance with
principle 22.”

[179]
The official English-language translation actually refers to provision of
“economic detention,” a
mistranslation of “economic compensation” (经济赔偿) from the NHRAP’s Chinese-language version.
http://www.humanrights.cn/cn/dt/gnbb/t20090413_438873.htm (accessed on October
22, 2011).

[182]Number
of officers reportedly present at the scene at the time of the incident.

[183]王晓亮, "延安男子一旁"多句嘴"被城管打住院市民：确实打人了," (“In Yan’an, man hospitalized after being
beaten up by chengguan for speaking to them; city residents confirm that
chengguan did beat him up”), 华商报, March 19, 2012,
http://yanan.hsw.cn/system/2012/03/19/051275793.shtml (accessed March
19, 2012).

[186] "市民投诉秀英城管执法踢伤儿童小腿负责人解释," (“City residents lodge a complaint against Xiuying
District chengguan for kicking a child’s shin in the process of law
enforcement; officials provide an explanation”), 人民网海南视窗, March 12, 2012,
http://news.hainan.net/newshtml08/2012w3r12/851778f0.htm (accessed March
14, 2012).

[190]丁建庭, "三亚城管暴力执法当着8岁孩子面打妈妈超出底线," (“Sanya chengguan reaches a new low in using violence
in law enforcement, beats a mother in front of her 8 year old son”), 南方日报, February 21, 2012,
http://china.nfdaily.cn/content/2012-02/21/content_38394168.htm (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[192] "兄弟俩抄近道回家闯进拆违现场遭城管一顿暴打," (“Two brother takes a shortcut on route home and
accidentally walks into the demolition of an illegal building, brutally beaten
up by chengguan”), 现代快报, January 18, 2012, http://www.wj001.com/news/shehuireping/2012-01-18/79528.html.

[196]余金山, "丽江古城城管被指打孕妇官方回应另有原因", (“Chengguan from Lijiang, Gucheng accused of beating
up pregnant lady, officials present a different story in their
response”), 丽江热线, December 27, 2011, http://www.lijiangtv.com/viewnews-27280-1.html
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[202]薛萌, "哈尔滨城管与市民起冲突执法人员称执法时被打," (“Harbin chengguan clashes with city residents,
chengguan claims he was also beaten”), 黑龙江晨报, November 17, 2011, http://news.sohu.com/20111117/n325901640.shtml
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[203] "青岛女子持刀与城管理论被夺刀后遭暴打," (“Qingdao lady brandishes knife when arguing with
chengguan, brutally beaten after she is disarmed of the knife”), 城市信报, November 23, 2011,
http://www.cqcb.com/cbnews/gngjnews/2011-11-23/459259.html (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[205] "城管第一天上班脱上衣赤膊暴打女摊贩," (“On his first day of work, chengguan removed his
shirt and beat up female street vendor”), 贵州商报, November 14, 2011, http://www.fjsen.com/h/2011-11/14/content_6770625.htm
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[209] "高清：昆明“城管”打死少年事后竟称“打错了”, (“Gaoqing: Kunming chengguan beats young man to
death, claims after the incident that they beat up the wrong person”), 人民网, October 8, 2011, http://pic.people.com.cn/GB/31655/15824978.html (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[213]周平洋、胡泊, "摊贩城管上演全武行家属称被打得满头是血," (“Physical altercation between chengguan and street
vendor, family members claim he was bleeding profusely from the head from the
beatings”), 云南网, August 31, 2011, http://news.sohu.com/20110831/n317900795.shtml (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[217]胡剑, "路桥城管昨整治夜排档时起冲突城管两人被砍伤，一人被砸伤," (“Luqiao chengguan involved in clashes when enforcing
law in night market, two chengguan injured from being hacked by knives, one
chengguan injured from being smashed by bottles”), 台州商报, August 17, 2011, http://www.taizhou.com.cn/zhuanti/2011-08/17/content_429785.htm
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[218] "流浪歌手街头卖唱遭暴打打人者疑为城管聘用," (“Street musician beaten up for performing on the
streets, suspects assailants were hired by chengguan”), 合肥晚报, August 17, 2011, http://news.hf365.com/system/2011/08/17/011089848.shtml
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[220] "取缔占道经营浦口城管和摊贩起冲突," (“Pukou chengguan clash with street vendors in trying
to prohibit them from operating on the streets”), 南京晨报 , August 12, 2011,
http://www.yangtse.com/news/nj/201108/t20110812_824458.html (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[225]黄勇李忠将,"贵州安顺摊贩死亡疑与城管有关引群众聚集围观," (“Street vendor dies in Anshun, Guizhou, death
suspected to be linked to chengguan, draws a crowd of passerbys”), 新华网贵州频道, July 27, 2011, http://news.qq.com/a/20110727/000804.htm (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[233]袁小锋, “夫妻围观城管执法时打电话遭质问被打伤,” (“Couple making a phone call while watching a law
enforcement incident gets questioned and beaten up by chengguan”), 华商报, July 4, 2011
http://news.sina.com.cn/s/p/2011-07-04/015822749824.shtml (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[242] "18岁高考生卖气球与长春朝阳城管起冲突都说被打了 ," (“18 year old high school student selling balloons
clashes with chengguan in Changchun, Chaoyang, each claims to have been
beaten”), 新浪教育, May 15, 2011,
http://news.365future.com/Html/201106/15/20110615085649.htm (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[243]冯炜程, "山东泗水城管打死六旬老人官方称其“激动死”," (“Chengguan from Sishui, Shandong beat elderly
man in his 60s to death, officials claim that he died from over-agitation”),
大众网, May 9, 2011, http://news.sohu.com/20110609/n309756942.shtml (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[244]周鹏, "两兄妹替父看摊遭城管毒打被迫带伤高考," (“Siblings tending over father’s stall subject
to brutal beatings, have to take high school examinations while
injured”), 西安晚报 , June 6, 2011,
http://www.qingdaonews.com/gb/content/2011-06/06/content_8809178.htm (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[248] "北京路：城管商贩发生冲突商贩横躺路中间," (“Chengguan and street vendors clash, street vendor
lies down across the middle of the street”),云视网讯, May 31, 2011, http://news.yntv.cn/content/18/20110531/160012_18_305631.shtml
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[252]常红浩, "目击者称流浪歌手遭城管围殴引数百人围堵," (“Eyewitness claims the beating of street musician by
chengguan triggered a crowd of hundreds of people forming around the site of
the incident”), 云南网, May 25, 2011,
http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2011-05-25/072622525597.shtml (accessed March
14, 2012).

[253] "日照城管小贩冲突各执一词小贩:还没摆摊就被打," (“Rizhao chengguan clash with street vendors, each
side provides different narratives of incident; street vendor claims, they beat
us up even before we set up our stall”),半岛都市报 , May 18, 2011, http://news.bandao.cn/news_html/201105/20110518/new
s_20110518_1309197.shtml (accessed March 14, 2012).

[257]朱志庚, 邵国栋, "网传“城管持钢管殴人” 城管与店主各执一词," (“Shared on the internet: ‘chengguan beats up
people with steel bars’; storeowner and chengguan provide different
narratives of incident”), 中国新闻网, May 27, 2011,
http://www.chinanews.com/sh/2011/05-27/3072042.shtml (accessed March 14,
2012).

[258]黄世杨, "摆摊时间引争议小贩称遭城管鞭抽," (“Argument over timing street vendors can set up
stalls, street vendor claims to have been whipped by chengguan”), 云南网 , May 9, 2011,
http://society.yunnan.cn/html/2011-05/09/content_1601858.htm (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[259]张国强, 霍仕明, "辽宁辽阳城管被指打死人：打人者模仿死者倒地," (“Chengguan from Liaoyang, Liaoning accused of
beating a person to death; assaliant mimics deceased and also falls to the
ground”), 人民网, May 12, 2011,
http://news.ifeng.com/mainland/detail_2011_05/12/6349503_0.shtml (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[262]强晓军, "渭南城管执法打人还推倒孕妇记者现场调查真相 ," (“Weinan chengguan beats up people in the process of
law enforcement, pushes pregnant woman to the floor; journalist arrive at the
scene of the incident to investigate”), 陕西电视台《第一新闻》, April 29, 2011,
http://news.cnwest.com/content/2011-04/29/content_4510473.htm (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[265]廖世杰, "江西交警家中遭城管暴打左眼失明," (“Jiangxi traffic police brutally beaten by chengguan
in his own home, resulting in blindness in left eye”), 新法制报, January 10, 2011, http://jiangxi.jxnews.com.cn/system/2012/01/10/011872512.shtml
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[276]张培君, "网曝济源暴力征地城管围殴群众官方称不会暴力征地," (“Internet expose – Chengguan beat up a crowd
in a violent land acquisition in Jiyuan, officials claim that they do not
resort to violence in land acquisitions”), 大河网讯,April 2, 2011,
http://henan.sina.com.cn/news/s/2011-04-02/63-65245.html(accessed March 14, 2012).

[285]周晓晖, “家中违建遭城管强拆警察被打,”(“Illegal
construction in policeman’s home demolished by chengguan, policeman
beaten up by chengguan”), 生活新报,
December 28, 2010, http://www.shxb.net/html/20101228/20101228_266386.shtml (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[286]林春长,
“城管与小贩发生肢体冲突 近百人围住车子讨说法,”
(“Physical altercation between chengguan and street vendors; close to a
hundred people surround the car to reason with chengguan”), 福州新闻网,December 25, 2010,
http://news.fznews.com.cn/shehui/2010-12-25/20101225je0pd2jvba103918.shtml (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[287]
“教师围观城管执法遭暴打事后被弃山野,”
(“Teacher beaten up for look at law enforcement incident; abandoned in
the wilderness afterwards”), 青岛新闻网,
December 23, 2010,
http://www.qingdaonews.com/gb/content/2010-12/23/content_8611261.htm (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[291] “虹口城管围殴15岁少年城管：摊主棍棒驱打在先,”
(“Chengguan in Hongkou beats up 15 year old youth,
chengguan claims street vendor had hit them with a stick first”), 东方早报,
December 11, 2010, http://sh.sina.com.cn/news/2010-12-11/0311165512.html
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[295]于忠虎,
“男子驾三轮撞树身亡家属称遭城管人员追赶,”
(“Man dies from crashing tricycle into tree, family claims he was chased
by chengguan”), 西安晚报,
November 26, 2010, http://xian.qq.com/a/20101126/000003.htm (accessed March 14,
2012).

[296]“仪陇县城管扬言:’城管打人不犯法’!”
(“Yilong county chengguan issues threat ‘it is not a crime for
chengguan to beat up people’”), 南海网,
November 24, 2010, http://www.637600.com/html/91/n-18291.html (accessed March
14, 2012).

[300]马晓鹏,
“孕妇称遭城管踢踹面临流产执法部门称不知情,”
(“Pregnant lady suffers from miscarriage after being kicked by chengguan,
law enforcement agency claims to be unaware of incident”), 城市晚报,
November 10, 2010, http://news.qq.com/a/20101110/000127.htm (accessed March 14,
2012).

[308]吴勇, “郑州执法局深夜强拆民房残疾房主被扔到30公里外,” (“Zhengzhou law
enforcement station demolishes a house in the middle of the night, disabled
homeowner thrown into a ditch 30 km away”), 河南商报, October 19, 2010,
http://news.dahe.cn/2010/10-19/100497368.html (accessed March 14, 2012).

[309]谷岳飞,
“城管局长当街殴打小姑娘神秘力量致事态平息,”(“
Head of chengguan station beats up young lady on the streets, mysterious force
smoothes incident over”),扬子晚报,
October 20, 2010, http://xw.chinawestnews.net/system/2010/10/20/010316834.shtml
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[310]程权,
“城管与小贩起冲突后怕被拍强行拖走玩手机保安,”
(“Chengguan afraid of being photographed after a clash with street
vendor, security guard using mobile phone taken away by force”), 都市时报,
October 15, 2010, http://news.sohu.com/20101015/n275738177.shtml (accessed
March 14, 2012).

[314]郭志昆,
“河北顺平县父子俩称一天内被城管殴打两次,”
(“Father and son from Hebei, Shunping County claim to be beaten by
chengguan twice in one day”), 燕赵都市报,
September 28, 2010, http://yanzhao.yzdsb.com.cn/system/2010/09/28/010720599.shtml
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[330]许洋,
“菜贩遭城管围殴后服下敌敌畏目前仍未脱离危险,”
(“Vegetable seller consumes poison after being beaten by several
chengguan, currently still in critical condition”), 楚天都市报,
August 5, 2010, http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2010-07-29/172420785335.shtml
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[334]彭科峰,
“镇政府疑违法强挖道路引冲突公司员工被城管殴打,”
(“Company suspected by town government of illegal roadwork, resulting in
clashes, employees of company beaten by chengguan ”), 京华时报,
July 28, 2010, http://society.huanqiu.com/roll/2010-07/964497.html
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[335]张皓,
“城管派出所内打断占道经营小贩肋骨,”
(“Street vendor beaten up by Chengguan at station for obstructing pathway
with stall, ribs broken”), 楚天都市报,
July 24, 2010, http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2010-07-24/062520747603.shtml
(accessed March 14, 2012).

[338]刘洋,
“商贩称遭20多名城管队员围殴,”
(“Street vendors beaten up by more than 20 chengguan“), 新文化报,
July 13, 2010, http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2010-07-13/015220663078.shtml (accessed March 14, 2012).

[339] “环卫工人被城管撞伤肇事司机称不知情,”
(“Sanitation worker run over by chengguan, driver claims to be unaware of
incident”), 央视《今日说法》,
July 29, 2010, http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2010-07-29/172420785335.shtml (accessed March 14, 2012).

[340]张志杰,
“男子被多名穿城管制服者罚款砸车欲报警遭打,”
(“Man fined and had his car smashed by chengguan, beaten when he wanted
to call the police”), 西安晚报网络版,
July 9, 2010, http://news.southcn.com/c/2010-07/09/content_13610360.htm (accessed March 14, 2012).

[344] “河南登封数十城管殴打店主姐弟指挥者称打死没事,”
(“Dozens of chengguan in Dengfeng, Henan beat up
shopkeeper and her siblings, ordered that it would not be an issue if they were
beaten to death”), 郑州晚报,
July 1, 2010, http://finance.ifeng.com/city/cskx/20100701/2363481.shtml (accessed March 14,
2012).